politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How long before Johnson’s “should” wear masks become a legal r
Comments
-
+1Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.1 -
It's also interesting to see Boris Johnson slowly ramping up the anti-home worker rhetoric. I suspect all social distancing will be abandoned at the end of August to a) get all the children back in school and b) encourage an autumn "return to the office".
To be fair, 50% capacity in offices in August would be an increase on the usual but apparently it will be every back office worker's "civic duty" to put the suit back on, march proudly back to the station, stand proudly on the train, queue proudly in Pret and then sit proudly at their desk contemplating how much they have rescued the economy.
The irony that Boris Johnson is a home worker himself isn't lost on me but it's no more than the usual guff of there being one law for him and another for the rest of us. If he can work at home, why can't anyone else?2 -
Bummed today that Polish electoral commission says, with 99.99% of vote counted in 2020 presidential runoff election, incumbent Andrzej Duda winner at 51.03% over challenger Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski. Though legal challenges to irregularities are likely, Mayor T has conceded to the Dud.
Link below features map of results by county, showing clear east versus west (actually more north-east v south-west) divide; note that Warsaw, Krakow, Gdasnk, Łódź, Poznań, Wrocław, other cities voted for Mayor T thus the orange enclaves surrounded by blue.
As for rural areas, with few exceptions (such as Poznań & vicinity also county on eastern border with sizeable Belarus minority) only ones to support opposition were in areas that were part of German Reich in 1939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Polish_presidential_election0 -
Isn't it about globally minimising infections. Don't know about anyone else but I'll go to the pub to have a drink and a chat with friends, the last shops I headed out to were B&Q for lightbulbs and Pet At Home for catfood. I think there should be some common sense applied too - the outdoor area of a garden centre for instance is an area where you don't need to bother with a mask.Mortimer said:
Probably. But the point I'm making is not that I'm pro masks in pubs. That would clearly be crackers.ydoethur said:
Wouldn’t it rather defeat the object of reopening if pubs had to order patrons to wear masks?Mortimer said:
I'm a shop owner - though admittedly one without skin in the game as I don't intend to reopen in the short-medium term - who would feel very hard done to if shops had to mandate masks, but pubs didn't....Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
My point is that if it isn't necessary in pubs, where people are in a stationary position in relatively close contact with others, drinking, how is it necessary for fleeting encounters, largely distanced, in shops?0 -
I'm happy to offer you some quite good odds if you like.SeaShantyIrish2 said:BREAKING NEWS - an uninformed source from outside the inner circle of the Trump campaign says that, at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, the President will announce that Mike Pence is being replaced as VP running mate by . . . wait for it . . . Kanye West.
How about £20 at 5-to-1?
You would win £100 if Trump replaces Pence with Kanye. (Can't say fairer than that.)0 -
You move around more in a shop (read - supermarket) and therefore could potentially infect more people.Mortimer said:
Probably. But the point I'm making is not that I'm pro masks in pubs. That would clearly be crackers.ydoethur said:
Wouldn’t it rather defeat the object of reopening if pubs had to order patrons to wear masks?Mortimer said:
I'm a shop owner - though admittedly one without skin in the game as I don't intend to reopen in the short-medium term - who would feel very hard done to if shops had to mandate masks, but pubs didn't....Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
My point is that if it isn't necessary in pubs, where people are in a stationary position in relatively close contact with others, drinking, how is it necessary for fleeting encounters, largely distanced, in shops?
In your case, I agree, it would seem pointless even if it wasn’t moot.0 -
If he's right then he was pretty unlucky. But of course the point of mask wearing is not that it reduces the risk for an individual to zero, but less ambitiously that it reduces the probability of infection in some encounters across the whole population. If masks do that then they help reduce the R number, which means that, as a population, we can get away with a greater amount of riskier activities than we could otherwise, without tipping back into another widespread increase in cases.stodge said:
I wear a mask in shops - have done all the time- but, as my brother's experience has suggested, you really need a full hazmat suit to go to the Co-Op. It's my brother's view he picked up something an asymptomatic person had just put back and that's how he was re-infected.
0 -
But everyone who goes to the pub has their details taken down, they can be contacted later to isolate or get tested in case of infection.Mortimer said:
If we're going to get to the bizarre situation where they're to be mandatory in shops, where people pass fleetingly, and not pubs, where people stay in one place, I think there will be an awful lot of people not going to shops apart for essentials. Probably myself included.MaxPB said:
No, there is a scientific consensus on mask wearing. Your personal feelings are quite irrelevant to the general public health, if you don't want to wear one you'll need to stay indoors.Casino_Royale said:
That's not scientific consensus. That's someone venturing a guess.williamglenn said:
The scientific consensus is that contaminated surfaces are unlikely to be a major vector.Casino_Royale said:
Really? Why?eek said:
I may be being contrary here but the lack of mask wearing by others is what puts me off going shopping.Casino_Royale said:
They piss people off (not on here where everyone gets a boner about masks - or at least a boner about pretending to care about masks) and disincentives going out.MaxPB said:
What have you got against masks?Mortimer said:
Frankly I'd rather shut the insides of pubs than mandate mask wearing in shops. I'd be very surprised if non essential shopping (generally transitory, generally away from others) is higher risk than drinking/dining (generally stationary, generally group based). This would fit with the reopening of shops long before pubs/restaurants too.MaxPB said:
Completely agree on the last point, Jonathan. Let's get people wearing masks now so it doesn't come back.Jonathan said:
That ship has sailed. It takes one person in a mask to remind you. It's the lack of clarity that undermines confidence. Decide one way or the other.Mortimer said:I would be very wary, if I were in government, of mandating mask usage at the moment in shops - for a number of reasons:
...
Non essential retail is escapism. I don't want constant reminders of a pandemic whilst engaging in it.
I think that's a mistake. Let's keep it low rather than waiting for the bug to come back first. Better to say for the next X months, let's wear a mask.Mortimer said:
Finally, if I were in government I'd like to keep masks back as more ammo to throw at the problem if community spread grows again. If deployed now, usage will tail off as spread continues to be very low....
If people are forced to wear masks many will say: fuck it, let's order off Amazon instead. I can't be bothered.
We were doing fine with meshes, screens and social distancing. As both out in the figures.
This is such bullshit.
Which is why we are once again using Amazon for far too much..
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I couldn't give two figs about what anyone has on their visage, so long as they stay 2m away.
It's contaminated surfaces that are more convincing vectors for transmitting the disease - the products people pick up and put down - and no-one is recommending people wear gloves the whole time.
It's what people touch that worries me. And only that. Masks just piss me off in a myriad of ways.
Not wearing one. End of.
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1282184696466554883
If it wasn't a vector people wouldn't be washing their hands all the time and disinfecting everything.0 -
He and the PM both work from home.stodge said:It's also interesting to see Boris Johnson slowly ramping up the anti-home worker rhetoric. I suspect all social distancing will be abandoned at the end of August to a) get all the children back in school and b) encourage an autumn "return to the office".
To be fair, 50% capacity in offices in August would be an increase on the usual but apparently it will be every back office worker's "civic duty" to put the suit back on, march proudly back to the station, stand proudly on the train, queue proudly in Pret and then sit proudly at their desk contemplating how much they have rescued the economy.
The irony that Boris Johnson is a home worker himself isn't lost on me but it's no more than the usual guff of there being one law for him and another for the rest of us. If he can work at home, why can't anyone else?
They just can’t decide which home.0 -
I agree with Gove.Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
I think masks should be worn and encouraged, but I don't think they should need to be made compulsory to do so. I think wearing a mask in these circumstances should be considered good manners, like saying please and thank you - I believe in good manners and try to follow them but I don't think they should need to be enforced by law.
Furthermore while I think that a compulsory mask law would be illiberal, I think if the choice is between shutting down activity with a second lockdown or having the activity but with masks then the latter is the more liberal option.
Finally I think if shops want to have 'masks must be worn' as their own policy then that is their free choice and is a liberal solution too. Just as if a premise wants to have a 'shirts must be worn' policy.0 -
One thing you probably can say with reasonable certainty - a compulsory mask policy is going to be manna from heaven for shoplifters
1 -
Montana - Over 50% would win it no matter how you look at it ;-)Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
2016 Trump got 56% so surprising that Biden 9% ahead now - if he is.0 -
Does anyone think there's a mismatch in the Betfair odds when you compare Trump's chances of winning the election and winning the popular vote? 2.8 for winning the election and 8 for winning the popular vote. Seems like too much of a gap.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.1702111160 -
My view is masks are either a useful intervention in controlling an endemic and dangerous virus, or they are not. If they are useful, it is only because they are made non-optional. People prevent transmission to others by wearing a mask.Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
According to the research I saw they are less effective than washing your hands, not meeting other people at all (lockdown) and keeping a strict 2m distance. But if you accept people are going to meet people, masks have a useful role to play.
In summary, you wear a mask or you stay at home, for reasons of public safety.0 -
9% down, LS.logical_song said:
Montana - Over 50% would win it no matter how you look at it ;-)Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
2016 Trump got 56% so surprising that Biden 9% ahead now - if he is.0 -
Yes, my brother lives in one of the hotspots down in Kent and he hasn't had a good run. The problem he has is he has never tested negative and he wonders if he will have this for a long time to come.pm215 said:
If he's right then he was pretty unlucky. But of course the point of mask wearing is not that it reduces the risk for an individual to zero, but less ambitiously that it reduces the probability of infection in some encounters across the whole population. If masks do that then they help reduce the R number, which means that, as a population, we can get away with a greater amount of riskier activities than we could otherwise, without tipping back into another widespread increase in cases.
My worry is we really still seem to know so little about the numbers who have had it (unreported) and those who are asymptomatic and that's the thing. You feel fine but you're infecting others and that's the tough part.
Over 60,000 have died yet we still seem to struggle with some basic health and public health questions. The Freedom TO not wear a mask versus the Freedom FROM serious illness or death from a nasty virus - that's freedom for you.
0 -
-
Biden also doing pretty well in FL & PA to mention just two less politically-superfluous states. It is NOT as though he's making gains - and Trumpsky is taking hits - in Red states, but NOT in Purple ones.Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.0 -
Poll says Biden -9 behind in Big Sky Country.logical_song said:
Montana - Over 50% would win it no matter how you look at it ;-)Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
2016 Trump got 56% so surprising that Biden 9% ahead now - if he is.0 -
Well, won't time tell?houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
If it turns out that Sweden has managed the smallest disruption to peoples' lives, while keeping the economy going, and not having massive excess deaths, then their approach will be vindicated.
If it turns out that Sweden actually has a long-running issue, and an economy that stays in the shitter because there is a de facto lockdown as people don't go out, and the virus is not actually eliminated, then that approach will be seen as a failure.
Right now, I'm seeing the second scenario being more likely than the first.0 -
Trump is still 9% ahead in Montanalogical_song said:
Montana - Over 50% would win it no matter how you look at it ;-)Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
2016 Trump got 56% so surprising that Biden 9% ahead now - if he is.0 -
If Biden were 9% or even 0.009% ahead in Montana, we would be looking at the worst Republican defeat since at least 1936.HYUFD said:
Trump is still 9% ahead in Montanalogical_song said:
Montana - Over 50% would win it no matter how you look at it ;-)Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
2016 Trump got 56% so surprising that Biden 9% ahead now - if he is.0 -
Is the polite transmission of a deadly disease because you refuse to wear a mask, good manners?Philip_Thompson said:
I agree with Gove.Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
I think masks should be worn and encouraged, but I don't think they should need to be made compulsory to do so. I think wearing a mask in these circumstances should be considered good manners, like saying please and thank you - I believe in good manners and try to follow them but I don't think they should need to be enforced by law.
Furthermore while I think that a compulsory mask law would be illiberal, I think if the choice is between shutting down activity with a second lockdown or having the activity but with masks then the latter is the more liberal option.
Finally I think if shops want to have 'masks must be worn' as their own policy then that is their free choice and is a liberal solution too. Just as if a premise wants to have a 'shirts must be worn' policy.1 -
Your generosity knows no bounds, Robert.rcs1000 said:
I'm happy to offer you some quite good odds if you like.SeaShantyIrish2 said:BREAKING NEWS - an uninformed source from outside the inner circle of the Trump campaign says that, at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Jacksonville, the President will announce that Mike Pence is being replaced as VP running mate by . . . wait for it . . . Kanye West.
How about £20 at 5-to-1?
You would win £100 if Trump replaces Pence with Kanye. (Can't say fairer than that.)
What next - selling bridges at knock-down prices?0 -
Figures doing round in Spainstodge said:
Yes, my brother lives in one of the hotspots down in Kent and he hasn't had a good run. The problem he has is he has never tested negative and he wonders if he will have this for a long time to come.pm215 said:
If he's right then he was pretty unlucky. But of course the point of mask wearing is not that it reduces the risk for an individual to zero, but less ambitiously that it reduces the probability of infection in some encounters across the whole population. If masks do that then they help reduce the R number, which means that, as a population, we can get away with a greater amount of riskier activities than we could otherwise, without tipping back into another widespread increase in cases.
My worry is we really still seem to know so little about the numbers who have had it (unreported) and those who are asymptomatic and that's the thing. You feel fine but you're infecting others and that's the tough part.
Over 60,000 have died yet we still seem to struggle with some basic health and public health questions. The Freedom TO not wear a mask versus the Freedom FROM serious illness or death from a nasty virus - that's freedom for you.
Infected person no mask, you wear mask 70% chance of infection
Infected person mask, you no mask 5% chance of infection
Both wear mask 1.5% chance of infection.
No scientific reference but circulating widely by public authorities.2 -
Isn’t a key to be doing well in swing states where the Republicans don’t control the electoral process?SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Biden also doing pretty well in FL & PA to mention just two less politically-superfluous states. It is NOT as though he's making gains - and Trumpsky is taking hits - in Red states, but NOT in Purple ones.Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.0 -
Think of it as a kind of "risk budget" -- say going down the pub has a risk of 4 (utterly arbitrary numbers for sake of example), and going down the local shop without a mask a risk of 2. Shopping maskless is safer than a pub trip, but if our overall risk budget is 5 then putting the mask on for the shopping trip (relatively minor sacrifice) means we can fit a pub trip in budget (greater overall benefit). The "budgeting" is really at the population level rather than individual (what do we allow, what do we continue to advise against), but this is the kind of thing the government must be thinking about.Mortimer said:
My point is that if it isn't necessary in pubs, where people are in a stationary position in relatively close contact with others, drinking, how is it necessary for fleeting encounters, largely distanced, in shops?
3 -
The view on from the US: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/12/health/britain-masks-intl-gbr/index.html0
-
Aren't the polls all pretty consistent (irrespective of state) with the polls moving about five points in Biden's favour since 2016?Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.
Now, sure, there are places where he does better than that (like Iowa, where Trump's tariffs have hit hard), and places where he does worse, but it seems that one should probably just simply go with the view that a 3% or more national lead will result in a Biden Presidency, and a 1% or less would result in a Trump one.0 -
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1282745041593806855?s=20SeaShantyIrish2 said:Bummed today that Polish electoral commission says, with 99.99% of vote counted in 2020 presidential runoff election, incumbent Andrzej Duda winner at 51.03% over challenger Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski. Though legal challenges to irregularities are likely, Mayor T has conceded to the Dud.
Link below features map of results by county, showing clear east versus west (actually more north-east v south-west) divide; note that Warsaw, Krakow, Gdasnk, Łódź, Poznań, Wrocław, other cities voted for Mayor T thus the orange enclaves surrounded by blue.
As for rural areas, with few exceptions (such as Poznań & vicinity also county on eastern border with sizeable Belarus minority) only ones to support opposition were in areas that were part of German Reich in 1939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Polish_presidential_election0 -
Sure but to labour my analogy a bit further, I see the defending champion shipping plenty of punishment but he's not on the deck yet, and he certainly hasn't been counted out.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Biden also doing pretty well in FL & PA to mention just two less politically-superfluous states. It is NOT as though he's making gains - and Trumpsky is taking hits - in Red states, but NOT in Purple ones.Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.0 -
Yes, and this was an ominous report from Kings College this morning:rcs1000 said:
Well, won't time tell?houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
If it turns out that Sweden has managed the smallest disruption to peoples' lives, while keeping the economy going, and not having massive excess deaths, then their approach will be vindicated.
If it turns out that Sweden actually has a long-running issue, and an economy that stays in the shitter because there is a de facto lockdown as people don't go out, and the virus is not actually eliminated, then that approach will be seen as a failure.
Right now, I'm seeing the second scenario being more likely than the first.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests0 -
Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.4
-
If I cough before this pandemic either put my hands to my mouth or coughed into my elbow if I couldn't do that. Coughing without doing so is very, very bad manners - but its not criminal.FF43 said:
Is the polite transmission of a deadly disease because you refuse to wear a mask, good manners?Philip_Thompson said:
I agree with Gove.Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
I think masks should be worn and encouraged, but I don't think they should need to be made compulsory to do so. I think wearing a mask in these circumstances should be considered good manners, like saying please and thank you - I believe in good manners and try to follow them but I don't think they should need to be enforced by law.
Furthermore while I think that a compulsory mask law would be illiberal, I think if the choice is between shutting down activity with a second lockdown or having the activity but with masks then the latter is the more liberal option.
Finally I think if shops want to have 'masks must be worn' as their own policy then that is their free choice and is a liberal solution too. Just as if a premise wants to have a 'shirts must be worn' policy.
Refusing to wear a mask when you are capable of doing so should be as socially ostracised and socially unacceptable as in normal times pre-COVID walking around coughing without bothering to cover your mouth would be.
But I don't see why the government need get involved.1 -
+1houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
1 -
Bill Clinton won Montana in 1992, as did LBJ in 1964 and Truman in 1948ydoethur said:
If Biden were 9% or even 0.009% ahead in Montana, we would be looking at the worst Republican defeat since at least 1936.HYUFD said:
Trump is still 9% ahead in Montanalogical_song said:
Montana - Over 50% would win it no matter how you look at it ;-)Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
2016 Trump got 56% so surprising that Biden 9% ahead now - if he is.0 -
Songs of the (Potential) Battle Ground States
MEET ME IN MONTANA
Paul Davis (but made a hit by Marie Osmond)
Wrote my whole life down in an old book
Songs about you and me
Been singing to every soul in Tennessee
Nobody seems to listen
No one ever smiles the way that you do
So I guess you never hear me on the radio
And I'd give up this crazy dream of mine to hold you once more
Won't you meet me in Montana?
I want to see the mountains in your eyes
I had all of this life I can handle
Meet me underneath that big Montana sky
I left home for Hollywood
Lookin' for a part to play
Well you always said I had such a pretty face.
But, I guess I'm not that pretty
'Cause no one looks at me the way you do
Well you'll always be a movie star to me
Darlin' now I guess it's time that I let go of that dream
Won't you meet me in Montana?
I want to see the mountains your eyes
I've had all of this life I can handle
Meet me underneath that big Montana sky
Well were stuck here in these hills that they call mountains
Darlin' back home in your arms is right where I want to be
Won't you meet me in Montana
I want to see the mountains your eyes.
I've had all of this life I can handle
Meet me underneath that big Montana sky
0 -
Remind me again who won Mansfield and Bassetlaw in 1992?HYUFD said:
Bill Clinton won Montana in 1992ydoethur said:
If Biden were 9% or even 0.009% ahead in Montana, we would be looking at the worst Republican defeat since at least 1936.HYUFD said:
Trump is still 9% ahead in Montanalogical_song said:
Montana - Over 50% would win it no matter how you look at it ;-)Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
2016 Trump got 56% so surprising that Biden 9% ahead now - if he is.0 -
On the subject of Montana, people should know that Mayor of the State Capital (Helena) is a former refugee.0
-
Unlike other pollsters Survation surveys are UK - rather than GB - based. The GB equivalent here would be Con 43% Lab 37%.Scott_xP said:0 -
He's defending champion same way that Hoover was in 1932. And the French Army in 1940.Peter_the_Punter said:
Sure but to labour my analogy a bit further, I see the defending champion shipping plenty of punishment but he's not on the deck yet, and he certainly hasn't been counted out.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Biden also doing pretty well in FL & PA to mention just two less politically-superfluous states. It is NOT as though he's making gains - and Trumpsky is taking hits - in Red states, but NOT in Purple ones.Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.
Punch drunk and clinging to the same old game plane.0 -
PlanSeaShantyIrish2 said:
He's defending champion same way that Hoover was in 1932. And the French Army in 1940.Peter_the_Punter said:
Sure but to labour my analogy a bit further, I see the defending champion shipping plenty of punishment but he's not on the deck yet, and he certainly hasn't been counted out.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Biden also doing pretty well in FL & PA to mention just two less politically-superfluous states. It is NOT as though he's making gains - and Trumpsky is taking hits - in Red states, but NOT in Purple ones.Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.
Punch drunk and clinging to the same old game plane.0 -
If that Kings college study turns out to be true then herd immunity is going to be impossible to achieve.0
-
Yes - it's unusual to win one without the other. The betting markets are spooked by last time. 8 seems a reasonable long shot, given that it's 4 months to go - maybe Trump will be thought to win the debates, foir instance.Andy_JS said:Does anyone think there's a mismatch in the Betfair odds when you compare Trump's chances of winning the election and winning the popular vote? 2.8 for winning the election and 8 for winning the popular vote. Seems like too much of a gap.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.1702111160 -
Any evidence of facial coverings causing more facial and/or respiratory irritation and leading to more coughing and spluttering? Just to chuck that out there to be shot down...
By the way, reports I am getting anecdotally is that mask compliance (and certainly “proper” mask compliance ie. Permanent covering of mouth and nose etc is falling quite rapidly in London public transport. Whether this is just increasingly down to people’s perception of relative risk in London, or just very little evidence of much in the way of enforcement I don’t know.
And it seems to me that moving towards mandatory face coverings in shops is going to face a big problem of who is expected to ensure compliance. It is quite clear that unions and shopkeepers are strongly resisting any suggestion that it should be their responsibility (and with good reason). Is the Govt going to want to declare face coverings mandatory only to have the media running about here there and everywhere finding examples of it being flaunted with impunity? On the other hand, maybe that is the best compromise!0 -
Is it as much as that?rcs1000 said:
Aren't the polls all pretty consistent (irrespective of state) with the polls moving about five points in Biden's favour since 2016?Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.
Now, sure, there are places where he does better than that (like Iowa, where Trump's tariffs have hit hard), and places where he does worse, but it seems that one should probably just simply go with the view that a 3% or more national lead will result in a Biden Presidency, and a 1% or less would result in a Trump one.
Clinton won the popular vote by 2%. Biden's about 9% up now so a net 7% (3.5 swing). He's worthy favorite but it's by no means over.0 -
As the evidence as set out earlier by Nichomar showed is if infected people even without symptoms do not wear masks there is a 70% chance of them spreading it, if they do wear masks just a 5% chance.Philip_Thompson said:
If I cough before this pandemic either put my hands to my mouth or coughed into my elbow if I couldn't do that. Coughing without doing so is very, very bad manners - but its not criminal.FF43 said:
Is the polite transmission of a deadly disease because you refuse to wear a mask, good manners?Philip_Thompson said:
I agree with Gove.Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
I think masks should be worn and encouraged, but I don't think they should need to be made compulsory to do so. I think wearing a mask in these circumstances should be considered good manners, like saying please and thank you - I believe in good manners and try to follow them but I don't think they should need to be enforced by law.
Furthermore while I think that a compulsory mask law would be illiberal, I think if the choice is between shutting down activity with a second lockdown or having the activity but with masks then the latter is the more liberal option.
Finally I think if shops want to have 'masks must be worn' as their own policy then that is their free choice and is a liberal solution too. Just as if a premise wants to have a 'shirts must be worn' policy.
Refusing to wear a mask when you are capable of doing so should be as socially ostracised and socially unacceptable as in normal times pre-COVID walking around coughing without bothering to cover your mouth would be.
But I don't see why the government need get involved.
We locked down to stop the spread of Covid, not to stop people just getting a cough0 -
Duly noted, thank you.Philip_Thompson said:
But that's the point, it'd be an absurd mess.Carnyx said:
But the Labour administration couldn't deploy its Scottish MPs in (as I assume you mean) retained domestic business kept in England. It could certainly control business in Pmt. But any progress would as you say earlier be dependent on the Tories in Westminster Pmt. Or am I missing something?Philip_Thompson said:
The English wouldn't get what they voted for.Carnyx said:
Indeed. I was being perhaps a bit disingenuous in not admitting that possibility, and you are right to pick me up on that.Philip_Thompson said:
England's always going to be there though, its the Scottish MPs at Westminster that are more of an issue.Carnyx said:
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?HYUFD said:
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PMCorrectHorseBattery said:Electoral Calculus seat projection:
Conservative Party: 333 (-32)
Labour Party: 229 (+27)
SNP: 53 (+5)
Liberal Democrat: 11 (-)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (-)
Green Party: 1 (-)
Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
What a mess that would be!
But on the other hand the English would get what they voted for (with the important effect of UK wide matters such as budget etc under the Barnett exception).
In any case, would SLAB MPs for Scottish seats now not be unable to vote on English matters thanks to the changes Mr Cameron brought in? They've (the regulations for EVEL) have not been much in public debate of late but the SNP self-denyong ordinance rather negates the need anyway.
And, now I think about it, it is only a mess from a Labour point of view. Not, arguably, a SNP or Tory one. And perhaps closer to a majority public view, even.
In that scenario even though the English voted majority Tory then matters that are considered "devolved" would be decided by a Labour government. It'd be like the First Minister of Scotland being a Tory because England voted Tory.
For devolved matters like Health and Education we'd have a Labour Secretary of State in a Labour executive that requires Tory MPs to pass its legislation.
It would be like a majority of Scottish MSPs being SNP but the Scottish Government being Tory, with a Tory Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and a Tory Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills . . . but all justified as it would take the SNP majority of MSPs to pass legislation the Tory executive wanted to pass.
And yet that ( a minority government, though not Tory-led) was the (quite deliberately contrived) situation for most of Holyrood's life, thanks to its Labour creators and LD allies. Goose, gander ...
But perhaps perceptions of minority governments differ according to experience.0 -
There's something in that. Reopening schools should be given a fair amount of the budget, for example. Another possibility is that the powers that be think we need to get in the habit ahead of the autumn and winter when pubs might be made to shut again and masks in shops could make a big difference.pm215 said:
Think of it as a kind of "risk budget" -- say going down the pub has a risk of 4 (utterly arbitrary numbers for sake of example), and going down the local shop without a mask a risk of 2. Shopping maskless is safer than a pub trip, but if our overall risk budget is 5 then putting the mask on for the shopping trip (relatively minor sacrifice) means we can fit a pub trip in budget (greater overall benefit). The "budgeting" is really at the population level rather than individual (what do we allow, what do we continue to advise against), but this is the kind of thing the government must be thinking about.Mortimer said:
My point is that if it isn't necessary in pubs, where people are in a stationary position in relatively close contact with others, drinking, how is it necessary for fleeting encounters, largely distanced, in shops?1 -
I'm pretty sceptical that this is a big issue. Firstly, the immune system is not all about antibodies. Secondly, you don't necessarily need to have that many antibodies to mount a robust defence.Foxy said:
Yes, and this was an ominous report from Kings College this morning:rcs1000 said:
Well, won't time tell?houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
If it turns out that Sweden has managed the smallest disruption to peoples' lives, while keeping the economy going, and not having massive excess deaths, then their approach will be vindicated.
If it turns out that Sweden actually has a long-running issue, and an economy that stays in the shitter because there is a de facto lockdown as people don't go out, and the virus is not actually eliminated, then that approach will be seen as a failure.
Right now, I'm seeing the second scenario being more likely than the first.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/12/immunity-to-covid-19-could-be-lost-in-months-uk-study-suggests
If we start to see widespread evidence of people getting re-infections (which we're not), and those re-infections are as severe as the initial infection (which I'd be extremely surprised by), then we should worry.
Otherwise, we may simply be measuring the fact that the body generated a great many more antibodies in the initial aftermath of infection. (Which, by the way, is consistent with the problems people have with cytokine storms in the aftermath of a CV-19 infection.)1 -
That's not necessarily true.MaxPB said:If that Kings college study turns out to be true then herd immunity is going to be impossible to achieve.
The t-cell response is also very important - see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found-covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity2 -
Trump is ahead by 9% in Montana, Clinton won it by 2% in 1992Peter_the_Punter said:
Is it as much as that?rcs1000 said:
Aren't the polls all pretty consistent (irrespective of state) with the polls moving about five points in Biden's favour since 2016?Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.
Now, sure, there are places where he does better than that (like Iowa, where Trump's tariffs have hit hard), and places where he does worse, but it seems that one should probably just simply go with the view that a 3% or more national lead will result in a Biden Presidency, and a 1% or less would result in a Trump one.
Clinton won the popular vote by 2%. Biden's about 9% up now so a net 7% (3.5 swing). He's worthy favorite but it's by no means over.0 -
Yes, about a 5% swing to the Democrats. In 2016, Trump won 56-36 and in 2012 Romney won 55-41. Obama got within 2.5 points of taking the State in 2008 but that didn't stop him winning a convincing victory.rcs1000 said:
Aren't the polls all pretty consistent (irrespective of state) with the polls moving about five points in Biden's favour since 2016?
Now, sure, there are places where he does better than that (like Iowa, where Trump's tariffs have hit hard), and places where he does worse, but it seems that one should probably just simply go with the view that a 3% or more national lead will result in a Biden Presidency, and a 1% or less would result in a Trump one.
I suspect Montana and its huge number of ECV isn't high on the Democrat agenda for the Presidential election but it's always good to force your opponent into his or her territory.
0 -
Who would Ross Perot be this time around?HYUFD said:
Trump is ahead by 9% in Montana, Clinton won it by 2% in 1992Peter_the_Punter said:
Is it as much as that?rcs1000 said:
Aren't the polls all pretty consistent (irrespective of state) with the polls moving about five points in Biden's favour since 2016?Peter_the_Punter said:
The best polls for Biden are in places he really doesn't need. Texas is classic. He's polling brilliantly there but if he takes it he's won by a landslide anyway. If he were doing as well in the true swing states or the rust belt, I'd pretty much want to call the contest now.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Personally think Biden (and Dem for Gov) closer than than in Big Sky Country, and also (though to lesser degree) in Show Me State.Peter_the_Punter said:
Consistent with Biden doing well in States he has no hope of winning.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Consistent with a 10%+ poll shift (or a 5% swing as traditionally thought of) and Trump down to approx 72 ECVs...HYUFD said:
This November think MO will vote for Our Fearless Leader, but MT may (emphasis on conditional) go for Uncle Joe. But only if he really does NOT need it (like Obama winning IN in 2008).
As it is, it reminds me of one of those championship fights where the contender builds up a solid points lead over the first eight rounds but he can't put the defending champ away, and you just know the champ always has a puncher's chance.
It's never over until it's over.
Now, sure, there are places where he does better than that (like Iowa, where Trump's tariffs have hit hard), and places where he does worse, but it seems that one should probably just simply go with the view that a 3% or more national lead will result in a Biden Presidency, and a 1% or less would result in a Trump one.
Clinton won the popular vote by 2%. Biden's about 9% up now so a net 7% (3.5 swing). He's worthy favorite but it's by no means over.0 -
I wonder at what point it'll move on to encouraging, then recommending, then mandating them outside, too. And it'll be "because there's less risk, but there's still a risk".0
-
I'm not talking a minority situation though.Carnyx said:
Duly noted, thank you.Philip_Thompson said:
But that's the point, it'd be an absurd mess.Carnyx said:
But the Labour administration couldn't deploy its Scottish MPs in (as I assume you mean) retained domestic business kept in England. It could certainly control business in Pmt. But any progress would as you say earlier be dependent on the Tories in Westminster Pmt. Or am I missing something?Philip_Thompson said:
The English wouldn't get what they voted for.Carnyx said:
Indeed. I was being perhaps a bit disingenuous in not admitting that possibility, and you are right to pick me up on that.Philip_Thompson said:
England's always going to be there though, its the Scottish MPs at Westminster that are more of an issue.Carnyx said:
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?HYUFD said:
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PMCorrectHorseBattery said:Electoral Calculus seat projection:
Conservative Party: 333 (-32)
Labour Party: 229 (+27)
SNP: 53 (+5)
Liberal Democrat: 11 (-)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (-)
Green Party: 1 (-)
Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
What a mess that would be!
But on the other hand the English would get what they voted for (with the important effect of UK wide matters such as budget etc under the Barnett exception).
In any case, would SLAB MPs for Scottish seats now not be unable to vote on English matters thanks to the changes Mr Cameron brought in? They've (the regulations for EVEL) have not been much in public debate of late but the SNP self-denyong ordinance rather negates the need anyway.
And, now I think about it, it is only a mess from a Labour point of view. Not, arguably, a SNP or Tory one. And perhaps closer to a majority public view, even.
In that scenario even though the English voted majority Tory then matters that are considered "devolved" would be decided by a Labour government. It'd be like the First Minister of Scotland being a Tory because England voted Tory.
For devolved matters like Health and Education we'd have a Labour Secretary of State in a Labour executive that requires Tory MPs to pass its legislation.
It would be like a majority of Scottish MSPs being SNP but the Scottish Government being Tory, with a Tory Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and a Tory Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills . . . but all justified as it would take the SNP majority of MSPs to pass legislation the Tory executive wanted to pass.
And yet that ( a minority government, though not Tory-led) was the (quite deliberately contrived) situation for most of Holyrood's life, thanks to its Labour creators and LD allies. Goose, gander ...
But perhaps perceptions of minority governments differ according to experience.
Since they're devolved the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for England's health and the Secretary of State for Education is responsible for England's education but I'm talking about a situation where the Tories have an English majority - but Labour rule is put in place in England because the SNP controls Scotland.
Its utterly illogical. Its not a minority issue, I'm saying its like the SNP having a majority of Scottish seats but the Scottish administration was Tory instead. That's the scenario I'm talking about.1 -
Enforcement is a huge issue. My experience from going on my first post-Covid train trip on Saturday suggests that a significant minority of the passengers don't use their masks properly or don't bother to travel with one at all, that the railway staff make no attempt to enforce the regulations, and, indeed, that a similarly large minority of the railways staff also fail to wear masks or to use them properly.alex_ said:And it seems to me that moving towards mandatory face coverings in shops is going to face a big problem of who is expected to ensure compliance. It is quite clear that unions and shopkeepers are strongly resisting any suggestion that it should be their responsibility (and with good reason). Is the Govt going to want to declare face coverings mandatory only to have the media running about here there and everywhere finding examples of it being flaunted with impunity? On the other hand, maybe that is the best compromise!
Hardly anyone is travelling on the trains, so you can multiply that problem by a hundred or a thousand when it comes to retail.
From a personal point of view, I'm not terribly fond of masks but I can put up with them in the shops. My concern, however, is that this will quickly escalate out of control and attempts will be made to force people to use the blessed things everywhere. Needing them for the supermarket is one thing; having an extremely low risk countryside walk ruined by having to breathe through a bedsheet the whole time is something else entirely.2 -
Isn't the issue that t-cell immunity may not be obtained by asymptomatic patients.rcs1000 said:
That's not necessarily true.MaxPB said:If that Kings college study turns out to be true then herd immunity is going to be impossible to achieve.
The t-cell response is also very important - see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found-covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity0 -
-
I learned over the week-end that an astonishing 40% plus of the human genome is made up of incorporated virus DNA (Dr John Lee in the Speccie).
If this is true it would be surely be remarkable if a large portion of the population did not already have some sort of inbuilt immunity to Corona, the latest in a very, very long line of viruses that have stretched back into the mists of time.
It also surely follows that the level of immunity would vary from genome to genome, based on the DNA of one's ancestors, and it is this and not discrimination that means some communities have suffered more than others.
1 -
Mayor is also Black in state with only 5k African Americans or thereabouts.rcs1000 said:On the subject of Montana, people should know that Mayor of the State Capital (Helena) is a former refugee.
BTW, turnout out that Helena elected a Black man, a barber, as unofficial mayor in 1873 before the city was formally incorporated; in 1876 same guy was a delegate to Republican National Convention AND GOP candidate for territorial delegate to Congress.0 -
Joe, we are all very much hoping that come January he can spend all his time playing golf and doesn’t need to listen to experts like Dr Fauci.rottenborough said:1 -
Because not wearing a mask endangers other people and one of the primary goals of government should be to protect us from being harmed by other people. What is the alternative? Do I enforce mouth covering myself by threatening violence against non mask wearers? Do I sue anybody who gives me Covid by not wearing a mask? If everyone behaved reasonably we wouldn't need any laws at all. But they don't, so we need them.Philip_Thompson said:
If I cough before this pandemic either put my hands to my mouth or coughed into my elbow if I couldn't do that. Coughing without doing so is very, very bad manners - but its not criminal.FF43 said:
Is the polite transmission of a deadly disease because you refuse to wear a mask, good manners?Philip_Thompson said:
I agree with Gove.Pulpstar said:
I'm in favour of compulsory masks in shops, but I'm certainly not claiming the libertarian label. Are you still doing so ?Philip_Thompson said:
I don't understand your problem with masks.Casino_Royale said:
Masks are twattish bollocks.houndtang said:I've had enough of this - how people are still buying this bollocks is beyond me. My father spent his last weeks of his life alone because of lockdown - given the choice I'm sure he'd have rather taken the risk and had the company. The story of covid is hysteria and moral panic on a global scale and the government has behaved disgracefully from the get go. Now they want to insist on us wearing masks. They can fuck right off. PS I voted Tory in December, this plus insipid reaction to BLM protests means I never will again.
I will do by absolute best to wear one as little as possible and break the boundaries of the rules as much as I can.
Placebo crap. Might as well fit a condom onto a cucumber and strap it onto your head.
The scientific evidence is they work and the more they minimise R the less we need other actions to take the burden.
I'd rather masks than alternative restrictions.
I think masks should be worn and encouraged, but I don't think they should need to be made compulsory to do so. I think wearing a mask in these circumstances should be considered good manners, like saying please and thank you - I believe in good manners and try to follow them but I don't think they should need to be enforced by law.
Furthermore while I think that a compulsory mask law would be illiberal, I think if the choice is between shutting down activity with a second lockdown or having the activity but with masks then the latter is the more liberal option.
Finally I think if shops want to have 'masks must be worn' as their own policy then that is their free choice and is a liberal solution too. Just as if a premise wants to have a 'shirts must be worn' policy.
Refusing to wear a mask when you are capable of doing so should be as socially ostracised and socially unacceptable as in normal times pre-COVID walking around coughing without bothering to cover your mouth would be.
But I don't see why the government need get involved.0 -
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.0 -
One person with CV-19 infected 87% of his fellow choir members.contrarian said:I learned over the week-end that an astonishing 40% plus of the human genome is made up of incorporated virus DNA (Dr John Lee in the Speccie).
If this is true it would be surely be remarkable if a large portion of the population did not already have some sort of inbuilt immunity to Corona, the latest in a very, very long line of viruses that have stretched back into the mists of time.
It also surely follows that the level of immunity would vary from genome to genome, based on the DNA of one's ancestors, and it is this and not discrimination that means some communities have suffered more than others.0 -
Immunity is surely defined by 'lack of symptoms?' Some rats are 'immune' to certain rat poisons. The poison enters their systems but it doesn;t kill themvor make them sickMaxPB said:
Isn't the issue that t-cell immunity may not be obtained by asymptomatic patients.rcs1000 said:
That's not necessarily true.MaxPB said:If that Kings college study turns out to be true then herd immunity is going to be impossible to achieve.
The t-cell response is also very important - see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found-covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity0 -
So we're at the point where if the EHRC declare Labour is not institutionally anti-Semitic, it will still be because some PB Tories say it is.
Okay then, I will adhere to what the EHRC says, they know what they're talking about. If they declare Labour not institutionally anti-Semitic, they aren't.
Labour literally cannot win, of course not a surprise from bad faith actors on this site.0 -
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=200 -
I don't think you can be a carrier if you are immune.contrarian said:
Immunity is surely defined by 'lack of symptoms?' Some rats are 'immune' to certain rat poisons. The poison enters their systems but it doesn;t kill themvor make them sickMaxPB said:
Isn't the issue that t-cell immunity may not be obtained by asymptomatic patients.rcs1000 said:
That's not necessarily true.MaxPB said:If that Kings college study turns out to be true then herd immunity is going to be impossible to achieve.
The t-cell response is also very important - see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found-covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity0 -
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.1 -
I thought the fraction was higher than that now, approaching a third or so?another_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.0 -
I don't think they'll be mandated for simply being outside at any point.solarflare said:I wonder at what point it'll move on to encouraging, then recommending, then mandating them outside, too. And it'll be "because there's less risk, but there's still a risk".
0 -
In non-mask news, has anyone read the piece about the central London economy in the Evening Standard (available without paywall via the website?)
Rebalancing away from London is now well in progress, although not necessarily in the manner that the Government may have envisaged. It's completely screwed. Very little commuter traffic, almost no foreign visitors and only limited prospects for a revival. Most offices empty, public transport still operating at a fraction of pre-pandemic levels, all the theatres and nightclubs still forcibly shuttered of course, and predictions of 50,000 job losses in the West End alone.
It's no wonder that Johnson is now trying to cajole commuters into going back into work, but he won't succeed (a recent survey apparently states that 88% of commuters polled said they would not be comfortable returning to public transport this year.) With time and support the tourist business and much of the wider retail, hospitality and entertainment sectors can be slowly nursed back to health, but much of that office space will stand empty forever once the current leases on it expire. The activity that it used to support has all moved into the leafier suburbs and the Home Counties. It's done. Finished.2 -
It isn't because it is not yet the law to make wearing them mandatory as it is on public transport, by the end of the week it likely will be the law and compulsory to wear a facemask while shoppinganother_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.0 -
Hmm I think people don't wear them because others don't. If there's a degree of compulsion that changes the equation.another_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.2 -
The joys of the Blairite devolution settlement. But the Tories have done nothing to correct it for England, except for EVEL.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not talking a minority situation though.Carnyx said:
Duly noted, thank you.Philip_Thompson said:
But that's the point, it'd be an absurd mess.Carnyx said:
But the Labour administration couldn't deploy its Scottish MPs in (as I assume you mean) retained domestic business kept in England. It could certainly control business in Pmt. But any progress would as you say earlier be dependent on the Tories in Westminster Pmt. Or am I missing something?Philip_Thompson said:
The English wouldn't get what they voted for.Carnyx said:
Indeed. I was being perhaps a bit disingenuous in not admitting that possibility, and you are right to pick me up on that.Philip_Thompson said:
England's always going to be there though, its the Scottish MPs at Westminster that are more of an issue.Carnyx said:
No, he doesn't. It shows how much the TORIES need England (and some of Wales and their NI allies) to win. The SNP are never going to vote for a Tory PM, are they?HYUFD said:
Tory majority of 69 without Scottish seats from the SNP (even including the 18 NI seats), Tory majority of just 16 with Scottish seats from the SNP, shows how much Starmer needs Scotland to become PMCorrectHorseBattery said:Electoral Calculus seat projection:
Conservative Party: 333 (-32)
Labour Party: 229 (+27)
SNP: 53 (+5)
Liberal Democrat: 11 (-)
Plaid Cymru: 4 (-)
Green Party: 1 (-)
Speaker: 1 (-)
2015 redux
And SNP MPs are no substitute for Labour MPs. Remember the SNP abstain on English-only matters so the complete Horlicks of a situation would be one with a Labour MP backed by SNP MPs - but a Tory majority if SNP abstain. English only laws would have a Tory veto on them. Plus the SNP would demand an independence referendum but if they win that then it means a Tory majority government in Westminster again.
What a mess that would be!
But on the other hand the English would get what they voted for (with the important effect of UK wide matters such as budget etc under the Barnett exception).
In any case, would SLAB MPs for Scottish seats now not be unable to vote on English matters thanks to the changes Mr Cameron brought in? They've (the regulations for EVEL) have not been much in public debate of late but the SNP self-denyong ordinance rather negates the need anyway.
And, now I think about it, it is only a mess from a Labour point of view. Not, arguably, a SNP or Tory one. And perhaps closer to a majority public view, even.
In that scenario even though the English voted majority Tory then matters that are considered "devolved" would be decided by a Labour government. It'd be like the First Minister of Scotland being a Tory because England voted Tory.
For devolved matters like Health and Education we'd have a Labour Secretary of State in a Labour executive that requires Tory MPs to pass its legislation.
It would be like a majority of Scottish MSPs being SNP but the Scottish Government being Tory, with a Tory Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and a Tory Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills . . . but all justified as it would take the SNP majority of MSPs to pass legislation the Tory executive wanted to pass.
And yet that ( a minority government, though not Tory-led) was the (quite deliberately contrived) situation for most of Holyrood's life, thanks to its Labour creators and LD allies. Goose, gander ...
But perhaps perceptions of minority governments differ according to experience.
Since they're devolved the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for England's health and the Secretary of State for Education is responsible for England's education but I'm talking about a situation where the Tories have an English majority - but Labour rule is put in place in England because the SNP controls Scotland.
Its utterly illogical. Its not a minority issue, I'm saying its like the SNP having a majority of Scottish seats but the Scottish administration was Tory instead. That's the scenario I'm talking about.0 -
And High Streets will be even more bolloxed.HYUFD said:
It isn't because it is not yet the law to make wearing them mandatory as it is on public transport, by the end of the week it likely will be the law and compulsory to wear a facemask while shoppinganother_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.
Still it means more profits for Amazon.
And good luck getting people to go to pubs and restaurants after they've been told that its not safe.0 -
It would depend on how much cellular compared to humoral (antibody) immunity there is. The Kings study would explain why some of my swab positive colleagues don't show antibodies.MaxPB said:If that Kings college study turns out to be true then herd immunity is going to be impossible to achieve.
0 -
Average age 69.rcs1000 said:
One person with CV-19 infected 87% of his fellow choir members.contrarian said:I learned over the week-end that an astonishing 40% plus of the human genome is made up of incorporated virus DNA (Dr John Lee in the Speccie).
If this is true it would be surely be remarkable if a large portion of the population did not already have some sort of inbuilt immunity to Corona, the latest in a very, very long line of viruses that have stretched back into the mists of time.
It also surely follows that the level of immunity would vary from genome to genome, based on the DNA of one's ancestors, and it is this and not discrimination that means some communities have suffered more than others.
If a 26 year old 'superspreader' infects 87% of his fellow 121 26 year old fellow choir members, 10% have colds and the rest have no symptoms whatever, then what does that 'infection' actually mean.
Are these really 'cases?'0 -
Typhoid Mary was immune, in the sense of not having symptoms, so far as I can recollect.RobD said:
I don't think you can be a carrier if you are immune.contrarian said:
Immunity is surely defined by 'lack of symptoms?' Some rats are 'immune' to certain rat poisons. The poison enters their systems but it doesn;t kill themvor make them sickMaxPB said:
Isn't the issue that t-cell immunity may not be obtained by asymptomatic patients.rcs1000 said:
That's not necessarily true.MaxPB said:If that Kings college study turns out to be true then herd immunity is going to be impossible to achieve.
The t-cell response is also very important - see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found-covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity1 -
What’s the PB pub-going factor like? Have we all been down the pub - or not? I’ve been twice, albeit to the same pub both times!0
-
It means you have a whole bunch of people silently spreading it far and wide.contrarian said:
Average age 69.rcs1000 said:
One person with CV-19 infected 87% of his fellow choir members.contrarian said:I learned over the week-end that an astonishing 40% plus of the human genome is made up of incorporated virus DNA (Dr John Lee in the Speccie).
If this is true it would be surely be remarkable if a large portion of the population did not already have some sort of inbuilt immunity to Corona, the latest in a very, very long line of viruses that have stretched back into the mists of time.
It also surely follows that the level of immunity would vary from genome to genome, based on the DNA of one's ancestors, and it is this and not discrimination that means some communities have suffered more than others.
If a 26 year old 'superspreader' infects 87% of his fellow 121 26 year old fellow choir members, 10% have colds and the rest have no symptoms whatever, then what does that 'infection' actually mean.
Are these really 'cases?'1 -
Not if what I saw in Cambridge when I was out shopping on Saturday is anything to go by. Mask use at perhaps 5%, certainly no more than 10%, and quite a lot of those were being worn as completely useless necklaces by people who were yakking on the phone, walking along whilst eating stuff, or probably in some cases just plain straightforward sick of breathing through a rag.RobD said:
I thought the fraction was higher than that now, approaching a third or so?another_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.
I think these polls showing massive support for the things are just examples of people giving virtue signalling answers. In reality then don't mind masks being theoretically imposed upon other people, but have no intention of using them themselves.2 -
THey are, if they are infectious - which is the key issue in this pandemic. Ro and all that.contrarian said:
Average age 69.rcs1000 said:
One person with CV-19 infected 87% of his fellow choir members.contrarian said:I learned over the week-end that an astonishing 40% plus of the human genome is made up of incorporated virus DNA (Dr John Lee in the Speccie).
If this is true it would be surely be remarkable if a large portion of the population did not already have some sort of inbuilt immunity to Corona, the latest in a very, very long line of viruses that have stretched back into the mists of time.
It also surely follows that the level of immunity would vary from genome to genome, based on the DNA of one's ancestors, and it is this and not discrimination that means some communities have suffered more than others.
If a 26 year old 'superspreader' infects 87% of his fellow 121 26 year old fellow choir members, 10% have colds and the rest have no symptoms whatever, then what does that 'infection' actually mean.
Are these really 'cases?'0 -
They might wear them but its not going to be a vote winner.Pulpstar said:
Hmm I think people don't wear them because others don't. If there's a degree of compulsion that changes the equation.another_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.
They'll also want to know why they need to wear them now when the government has told them for four months that they don't.
And they'll want to know why politicians don't bother wearing them while telling others to do so.0 -
I hope you're right, but I wouldn't put anything past this Government. They wouldn't even be the first to do it. There are draconian mask rules already in force in Spain, for example.Pulpstar said:
I don't think they'll be mandated for simply being outside at any point.solarflare said:I wonder at what point it'll move on to encouraging, then recommending, then mandating them outside, too. And it'll be "because there's less risk, but there's still a risk".
1 -
Polling says it's up to a third - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53388444Black_Rook said:
Not if what I saw in Cambridge when I was out shopping on Saturday is anything to go by. Mask use at perhaps 5%, certainly no more than 10%, and quite a lot of those were being worn as completely useless necklaces by people who were yakking on the phone, walking along whilst eating stuff, or probably in some cases just plain straightforward sick of breathing through a rag.RobD said:
I thought the fraction was higher than that now, approaching a third or so?another_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.
I think these polls showing massive support for the things are just examples of people giving virtue signalling answers. In reality then don't mind masks being theoretically imposed upon other people, but have no intention of using them themselves.1 -
The reverse, wearing facemasks reduces the spread of Covid making it safer to go shopping, not making facemasks compulsory means it is more sensible to shop via online delivery rather than in storeanother_richard said:
And High Streets will be even more bolloxed.HYUFD said:
It isn't because it is not yet the law to make wearing them mandatory as it is on public transport, by the end of the week it likely will be the law and compulsory to wear a facemask while shoppinganother_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.
Still it means more profits for Amazon.
And good luck getting people to go to pubs and restaurants after they've been told that its not safe.1 -
You can't be serious.contrarian said:
Average age 69.rcs1000 said:
One person with CV-19 infected 87% of his fellow choir members.contrarian said:I learned over the week-end that an astonishing 40% plus of the human genome is made up of incorporated virus DNA (Dr John Lee in the Speccie).
If this is true it would be surely be remarkable if a large portion of the population did not already have some sort of inbuilt immunity to Corona, the latest in a very, very long line of viruses that have stretched back into the mists of time.
It also surely follows that the level of immunity would vary from genome to genome, based on the DNA of one's ancestors, and it is this and not discrimination that means some communities have suffered more than others.
If a 26 year old 'superspreader' infects 87% of his fellow 121 26 year old fellow choir members, 10% have colds and the rest have no symptoms whatever, then what does that 'infection' actually mean.
Are these really 'cases?'0 -
Opening day, Saturday just gone and yesterday. Going Thursday evening as well to meet some work colleagues.Anabobazina said:What’s the PB pub-going factor like? Have we all been down the pub - or not? I’ve been twice, albeit to the same pub both times!
1 -
The fact that some communities have very high antibody rates and others very low ones despite not dissimilar exposures (Sweden versus certain US communities), suggests inherited virus related genome make-up is very, very important.Foxy said:
It would depend on how much cellular compared to humoral (antibody) immunity there is. The Kings study would explain why some of my swab positive colleagues don't show antibodies.MaxPB said:If that Kings college study turns out to be true then herd immunity is going to be impossible to achieve.
Some communities are very lucky in this respect, others very unlucky. Nobody can help their genetic make-up. But it would surely explain a lot.
1 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53388805
If the Government want to pay the several £Billion bill, they can do so. Let's get FTTP to all at the same time please.0 -
They might do on public transport but not in shops.RobD said:
I thought the fraction was higher than that now, approaching a third or so?another_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.0 -
Good point. The poll question wasn't specific.another_richard said:
They might do on public transport but not in shops.RobD said:
I thought the fraction was higher than that now, approaching a third or so?another_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.0 -
Why are we not putting all of the magic money tree into FTTP exactly? It's a guaranteed long-term pay off and has all sorts of gains for productivity and working. Upgrade every home in the country with the money we're spending on infrastructure.0
-
Severe yes but not harsh, and widely supported, we don’t want to go back to where we were with a total lockdown for 50+ days.Black_Rook said:
I hope you're right, but I wouldn't put anything past this Government. They wouldn't even be the first to do it. There are draconian mask rules already in force in Spain, for example.Pulpstar said:
I don't think they'll be mandated for simply being outside at any point.solarflare said:I wonder at what point it'll move on to encouraging, then recommending, then mandating them outside, too. And it'll be "because there's less risk, but there's still a risk".
0 -
My parents went to Spoons in Woking today. They said it was very professionally set up (it's quite a good layout anyway), and all the usual daytime drinkers were in there!Anabobazina said:What’s the PB pub-going factor like? Have we all been down the pub - or not? I’ve been twice, albeit to the same pub both times!
0 -
What happens if there is an infected person in the pub while you are there ?MaxPB said:
Opening day, Saturday just gone and yesterday. Going Thursday evening as well to meet some work colleagues.Anabobazina said:What’s the PB pub-going factor like? Have we all been down the pub - or not? I’ve been twice, albeit to the same pub both times!
Do you have to self-isolate afterwards ?0 -
It's not that difficult because the government can say it's part of moving away from 2m social distancing to 1m social distancing and allowing larger groups of people to be in the same place (no more queueing, groups of 20 people meeting outdoors etc...). Honestly, if the government links mask wearing to no longer having to queue up to shop then it will be a very big vote winner.another_richard said:
They might wear them but its not going to be a vote winner.Pulpstar said:
Hmm I think people don't wear them because others don't. If there's a degree of compulsion that changes the equation.another_richard said:
And less than 10% wear them.HYUFD said:
60% of voters now want masks to be compulsory for shoppers, including 57% of Tory votersanother_richard said:
And does Hunt have views on whether masks should be worn in pubs and restaurants ?NickPalmer said:Jeremy Hunt's constituency newsletter (I am an avid reader - it's a good read, with witty asides) predicts that masks in shops eill be compulsory within the next few days.
Less than 10% wear them in the supermarkets I've been to.
So that's a lot of people who might get annoyed - not a vote winner.
And if wearing masks are necessary now then the government is admitting it fucked up massively by neither encouraging them four months ago nor ensuring their supply - again not a vote winner.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1282713273817866242?s=20
So your poll is bollox.
They'll also want to know why they need to wear them now when the government has told them for four months that they don't.
And they'll want to know why politicians don't bother wearing them while telling others to do so.0
